persian_sort

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add real value: it discloses the ordering tier (digits → Persian → Latin) and that ZWNJ and Arabic/Persian letter variants are ignored. It stops short of noting case handling for Latin strings, the 10000-item cap, or error behavior on non-string input.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the ordering rules. No filler or repetition; every sentence conveys actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the collation semantics well but omits the sort-direction default, the item-count limit, and any error/edge-case behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies the input is strings and never explains the 'order' (asc/desc) parameter or its default direction. The collation rules describe tool behavior rather than the parameters, leaving the sort-direction parameter undocumented anywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (sort) and resource (strings in Persian alphabetical order), even sketching the collation sequence. It is clearly distinct from the sibling set, though it never explicitly names a sibling it should not be confused with (e.g. normalize_persian_text or persian_fuzzy_search).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the collation description but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. An agent can infer the tool sorts string arrays, but nothing tells it when another sibling (fuzzy search, normalization) would be a better fit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.